Familial hypercholesterolaemia in UK primary care: a Clinical Practice Research Datalink study of an under-recognised condition.

BACKGROUND: Studies utilising genotyping methods report the prevalence of familial hypercholesterolaemia to be as high as one in 137 of the adult population. AIM: To estimate the prevalence of familial hypercholesterolaemia measured by clinically coded diagnosis, associated treatments, and lipid measurements observed in UK primary care. DESIGN AND SETTING: This was a retrospective analysis using the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) GOLD database. METHOD: Patients aged ≥18 years and actively registered on the index date (30 June 2018) formed the study cohort. Point prevalence of familial hypercholesterolaemia for 2018 was estimated overall and for each nation of the UK. Patients with familial hypercholesterolaemia were stratified into primary and secondary prevention groups, defined as those with/without a prior diagnosis of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. Prevalence estimates and extrapolations were replicated for these subgroups. Baseline demographic, lipid, and clinical characteristics for the prevalent cohort were presented. RESULTS: In total, 4048 patients with familial hypercholesterolaemia formed the study cohort. The estimated familial hypercholesterolaemia prevalence for the UK was 16.4 per 10 000 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 16.0 to 16.9). Of these, 2646 (65.4%) patients with familial hypercholesterolaemia had a recent prescription for lipid-lowering therapy. Mean lipid levels were lower for those treated with lipid-lowering therapy compared with those untreated: 5.34 mmol/L (SD 1.50) versus 6.25 mmol/L (SD 1.55) for total cholesterol and 3.15 mmol/L (SD 1.34) versus 3.96 mmol/L (SD 1.36) for low-level density lipoprotein cholesterol. CONCLUSION: The estimated prevalence of familial hypercholesterolaemia was one in 608 of the population, less than expected from other studies, which may indicate that familial hypercholesterolaemia is under-recognised in UK primary care. Over one-third of diagnosed patients were undertreated and many did not achieve target goals, placing them at risk of cardiovascular events.

Adult hypertension referral pathway and therapeutic management: British and Irish Hypertension Society position statement.

In the UK, most adults with hypertension are managed in Primary Care. Referrals to Secondary Care Hypertension Specialists are targeted to patients in whom further investigations are likely to change management decisions. In this position statement the British and Irish Hypertension Society provide clinicians with a framework for referring patients to Hypertension Specialists. Additional therapeutic advice is provided to optimise patient management whilst awaiting specialist review. Our aim is to ensure that referral criteria to Hypertension Specialists are consistent across the UK and Ireland to ensure equitable access for all patients.

Risk of major adverse cardiovascular events associated with elevated low-density lipoprotein cholesterol in a population with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease with and without type 2 diabetes: a UK database analysis using the Clinical Practice Research Datalink.

OBJECTIVES: To estimate the 12-month probabilities of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and non-cardiovascular death in patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) and elevated low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C). DESIGN: A retrospective database analysis. SETTING: UK primary care. PARTICIPANTS: Patients were selected from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (Aurum) linked to Hospital Episode Statistics inpatient and Office of National Statistics mortality datasets. Patients with an ASCVD diagnosis between 01 January 2010 and 31 May 2018 and LDL-C ≥2.6 mmol/L were selected. PRIMARY OUTCOMES: Primary outcomes were 12-month risk of (1) MACE (composite of revascularisation, unstable angina, non-fatal myocardial infarction, non-fatal stroke and cardiovascular death) and (2) non-cardiovascular mortality. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis estimated the probability of each outcome. A Cox proportional hazards model explored covariates associated with MACE. RESULTS: Of 102 245 study patients, 16 501 (16.1%) had a diagnosis of type 2 diabetes (T2DM). 65.5% of those with and 49.9% of those without T2DM had a lipid-lowering therapy (LLT) 6 months prior to index diagnosis. Twelve-month probability of MACE was 7.9% for non-T2DM and 11.8% for T2DM. LDL-C was significantly associated with risk of MACE (HR=1.19 (95% CI 1.16 to 1.22) per 1 mmol/L). History of acute coronary syndrome, other coronary heart disease, stroke and T2DM significantly increased the risk of MACE. Ezetimibe (0.88 (95% CI 0.79 to 0.99)) and low-intensity statins (0.88 (95% CI 0.79 to 0.97)) were associated with reduced 12-month MACE risk.and low-intensity statins 0.88 (95% CI 0.79 to 0.97) CONCLUSION: We confirmed the association between elevated LDL-C and MACE. Many patients with ASCVD and elevated LDL-C were untreated with LLT. With the increasing demands on general practitioners, initiatives aimed at improving identification and treatment of at-risk patients within primary care should be considered.

Management of hypertensive crisis: British and Irish Hypertension Society Position document.

Patients with hypertensive emergencies, malignant hypertension and acute severe hypertension are managed heterogeneously in clinical practice. Initiating anti-hypertensive therapy and setting BP goal in acute settings requires important considerations which differ slightly across various diagnoses and clinical contexts. This position paper by British and Irish Hypertension Society, aims to provide clinicians a framework for diagnosing, evaluating, and managing patients with hypertensive crisis, based on the critical appraisal of available evidence and expert opinion.

Cancer patients' needs assessment in primary care: study protocol for a cluster randomised controlled trial (cRCT), economic evaluation and normalisation process theory evaluation of the needs assessment tool cancer (CANAssess).

INTRODUCTION: Unmet needs in patients with cancer and their carers are common but poorly identified and addressed. The Needs Assessment Tool-Cancer (NAT-C) is a structured consultation guide to identify and triage patient and carer unmet needs. The NAT-C is validated, but its effectiveness in reducing unmet patient and carer needs in primary care is unknown. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Cluster randomised controlled trial with internal pilot and embedded process evaluation to test the clinical and cost effectiveness of the NAT-C in primary care for people with active cancer in reducing unmet patient and carer need, compared with usual care. We will recruit 1080 patients with active cancer (and carers if relevant) from 54 general practices in England.Participating practices will be randomised 1:1 to either deliver an NAT-guided clinical consultation plus usual care or to usual care alone. Consenting participants with active cancer and their carers (if nominated) will be asked to complete study questionnaires at baseline, 1 and 3 months for all, 6 months except for those recruited outside of the last 3 months of recruitment, and attend an NAT-C appointment if allocated to an intervention practice. An internal pilot will assess: site and participant recruitment, intervention uptake and follow-up rates. The primary outcome, the proportion of patients with an unmet need on the Supportive Care Needs Survey Short Form 34 at 3 months postregistration, will be analysed using a multilevel logistic regression. Mixed-methods process evaluation informed by Normalisation Process Theory will use quantitative survey and interview data from clinicians and key stakeholders in cancer care to develop an implementation strategy for nationwide rollout of the NAT-C if the intervention is cost-effective. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval from London-Surrey REC (20/LO/0312). Results will be peer-reviewed, published and made available to research participants. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN15497400.

Takotsubo syndrome: a predominantly female CV disorder, from the perspective of primary care.

We describe two cases of Takotsubo syndrome and discuss the issues relating to diagnosis and patient communication that they raise.

Expert recommendations on the management of hypertension in patients with ovarian and cervical cancer receiving bevacizumab in the UK.

Bevacizumab is an anti-vascular endothelial growth factor monoclonal antibody that may prolong survival in ovarian and cervical cancer when given in combination with chemotherapy. It works by blocking the signalling pathways that are required for tumour angiogenesis, potentially limiting the cancer's ability to grow and spread. Hypertension is a known side effect of all angiogenesis inhibitors and could lead to interruption or premature discontinuation of effective anti-cancer treatment. Hypertension may also act as a barrier to the initiation of such treatment. In this review, we aim to present clear and practical recommendations on the management of blood pressure in ovarian and cervical cancer patients before, during and after bevacizumab treatment. This guidance covers considerations before initiating bevacizumab therapy and recommendations on the management of patients who develop hypertension, or who experience worsening of pre-existing hypertension, during bevacizumab treatment, and once the course of bevacizumab has been completed. These recommendations were developed collaboratively by a group of clinicians, comprising cardiologists, oncologists, a general practitioner and specialist oncology nurses, with expertise and practical experience in either oncology or hypertension. The aim of these recommendations is to support oncologists with hypertension assessment and management to facilitate starting or continuing bevacizumab.

Use of Supplementary Patient Education Material Increases Treatment Adherence and Satisfaction Among Acne Patients Receiving Adapalene 0.1%/Benzoyl Peroxide 2.5% Gel in Primary Care Clinics: A Multicenter, Randomized, Controlled Clinical Study.

INTRODUCTION: Poor adherence to acne treatment may lead to unnecessary treatments, increased healthcare costs, and reduced quality of life (QoL). This multicenter study evaluated the effect of supplementary patient education material (SEM) (a short video, information card, and additional information available online) on treatment adherence and satisfaction among acne patients treated with the fixed-dose combination adapalene 0.1%/benzoyl peroxide 2.5% gel (A/BPO) in primary care clinics versus (1) standard-of-care patient education (SOCPE) (package insert and oral instruction) and (2) SOCPE plus more frequent clinic visits. METHODS: Subjects with acne were randomized to receive once-daily A/BPO for 12 weeks plus (1) SEM in addition to SOCPE; (2) SOCPE only with two additional visits; or (3) SOCPE only. Other assessments included a subject appreciation questionnaire, a physician questionnaire, and safety. RESULTS: Ninety-seven subjects were enrolled. At baseline, most (87.6%) had mild to moderate acne. Better adherence was observed in the A/BPO + SEM group compared with A/BPO + more visits or A/BPO alone [mean 63.1%, 48.2% (p = 0.0206), and 56.5%, respectively]. The A/BPO + SEM group had more subjects with greater than 75% adherence (45%, 30.4%, and 25%, respectively). According to the subject appreciation questionnaire, the SEM was more helpful to adhere to treatment (56.7%) versus more visits (32.3%) and A/BPO alone (15.2%), better use the product (70%, 61.3%, and 54.5%, respectively), and better manage skin irritation (53.3%, 48.4%, and 36.4%, respectively). All physicians were satisfied with the SEM and 90% would consider using it in their practice. Safety assessment showed fewer treatment-related adverse events in the A/BPO + SEM group. CONCLUSION: Use of the SEM may increase adherence of acne patients treated with once-daily A/BPO gel in primary care, consequently improving treatment and QoL in the long term. FUNDING: Nestle Skin Health-Galderma R&D. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02307266.

Very low LDL-C levels may safely provide additional clinical cardiovascular benefit: the evidence to date.

BACKGROUND: Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the leading cause of death in Europe and increased low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) is a major contributor to CVD risk. Extensive evidence from clinical studies of statins has demonstrated a linear relationship between LDL-C levels and CVD risk. It has been proposed that lower LDL-C levels than those currently recommended may provide additional clinical benefit to patients. AIM: This review summarises the genetic and clinical evidence on the efficacy and safety of achieving very low LDL-C levels. METHODS: Relevant epidemiological and clinical studies were identified using PubMed and by searching abstracts published at major congresses. RESULTS: Genetic evidence demonstrates that individuals with naturally very low LDL-C levels are healthy and have a low risk of CVD. Clinical evidence has shown that those patients who achieve very low LDL-C levels through using lipid-lowering therapies (LLTs), such as statins, have reduced CVD risk compared with patients who only just achieve recommended target LDL-C levels. These data show that the incidence of adverse events in patients achieving very low LDL-C levels using LLT is comparable to those reaching the recommended LDL-C targets. CONCLUSIONS: Genetic and clinical evidence supports the concept that reduction in LDL-C levels below current recommended targets may provide additional clinical benefit to patients without adversely impacting patient safety. Statin add-on therapies, such as ezetimibe and the recently approved proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) inhibitors alirocumab and evolocumab, allow patients to achieve very low LDL-C levels and are likely to impact on future treatment paradigms.

Subgroup and per-protocol analyses from the Hypertension in the Very Elderly Trial.

BACKGROUND: The results of the Hypertension in the Very Elderly Trial showed positive benefits from blood pressure-lowering treatment in those aged 80 and over. METHOD: An analysis by the pre-specified subgroups [age, sex, history of cardiovascular disease (CVD) and initial SBP] was performed. The Hypertension in the Very Elderly Trial was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of 3845 participants aged 80 and over with SBPs of 160-199 mmHg and diastolic pressures below 110 mmHg recruited from Europe, China, Australasia and Tunisia. Active treatment was indapamide sustained-release 1.5 mg with the addition of perindopril 2-4 mg as required to reach a target blood pressure of less than 150/80 mmHg. RESULTS: For total mortality, benefits were consistent: men [hazard ratio 0.82, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.62-1.11], women (hazard ratio 0.77, 95% CI 0.66-0.99), those aged 80-84.9 (hazard ratio 0.76, 95% CI 0.60-0.96), those aged 85 and over (hazard ratio 0.87, 95% CI 0.64-1.20), those with a history of CVD (hazard ratio 0.76, 95% CI 0.48-1.20) and those without (hazard ratio 0.81, 95% CI 0.65-0.99), and similarly across a range of baseline SBPs. The point estimates for cardiovascular mortality, strokes, heart failure and cardiovascular events were all in favour of benefit. In the per-protocol analysis, strokes were reduced by 34% (P = 0.026), total mortality by 28% (P = 0.001), cardiovascular event by 37% (P < 0.001) and heart failure by 72% (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: In hypertensive patients aged 80 or more, treatment based on indapamide (sustained-release) 1.5 mg showed consistent benefits across pre-specified subgroups including those without established CVD (the majority), supporting the need for treatment even at this advanced age. There were too few aged 90 or over to determine benefit from treatment at extreme age.

Treating hypertension in the very elderly-benefits, risks, and future directions, a focus on the hypertension in the very elderly trial.

Although the number of individuals reaching 80 who are considered to be healthy is increasing, the very elderly are likely to have long-term conditions, to report symptoms and/or be taking at least one regular medication. The impact of antihypertensive treatment has to be taken into account in this context. The treatment regimen in Hypertension in the Very Elderly Trial with a goal blood pressure of <150/80 mmHg has been shown to provide benefits in terms of a reduction in risk of total mortality, stroke, and cardiovascular events with potential benefits and no evidence of increased risk for fracture, dementia, depression, and quality-of-life outcomes. Questions remain as to the level of benefit that would be accrued in the frailer elderly and those at extreme age, for example, over 90.

Concordance between plasma apolipoprotein B levels and cholesterol indices among patients receiving statins and nonstatin treatment: Post-hoc analyses from the U.K. InPractice study.

BACKGROUND: Apolipoprotein B (ApoB) is a superior predictor of low-density-lipoprotein (LDL) particle number and cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk compared with LDL-cholesterol (LDL-C) levels. Current evidence has shown a degree of discordance between LDL-C with ApoB levels among patients not receiving lipid-lowering therapy. The extent of this discordance among patients receiving LDL-lowering therapies however is less clear. METHODS: We performed a post hoc analysis of the InPractice data looking at the concordance between LDL-C, non-high density lipoprotein-cholesterol (nonHDL-C) and total cholesterol with ApoB values. The study involved 786 high-risk CVD patients from 34 primary care centers initially treated with simvastatin (S) 40 mg at baseline subsequently randomized to adding ezetimibe 10 mg to S 40 mg (E/S40) or changed to atorvastatin (A) 40 mg or to rosuvastatin (R) 5-10 mg for 6 weeks. RESULTS: At 6 weeks after treatment, the association between LDL-C and ApoB values for the different treatment regimes were similar; Pearson's correlation coefficients between LDL-C and ApoB were 0.84 (E/S40), 0.82 (A), and 0.83 (R). Overall, ApoB appeared to have a slightly greater correlation with nonHDL-C than with LDL-C across all treatment groups, for baseline and posttreatment values. The analysis of quintile frequencies showed a similar pattern; the proportion of patients who had values that fell in the same quintile post treatment for ApoB and LDL-C levels were 52.2% (E/S40), 44.5% (A), and 49.4% (R). Concordance between ApoB and nonHDL-C was 60.6% (E/S40), 62.4% (A), and 61.8% (R). Kappa analysis confirmed fair agreement between LDL-C and ApoB levels for all treatment groups; 0.59 (E/S40), 0.54 (A), and 0.56(R). CONCLUSION: We showed that the association between ApoB and LDL-C is similar across different lipid-lowering treatment regimes, which suggests that the use of different lipid-lowering agent confers similar ability to predict ApoB levels. When determining CVD risk at an individual patient level, limitation exists when using LDL-C or nonHDL-C per se as risk markers. In the absence of ApoB measurement, we believe that information from both LDL-C and nonHDL-C should be used together to improve the estimation of residual CVD risk among patients who are already receiving lipid lowering therapy.